keep it very very brief. thank you. >> sure. on behalf of us, i would like to congratulate and extend my deep gratitude to the programs and campaigns working together since 1997. as one of the founding members of the california media [indiscernible] our reporters have invaluable training under the scholarship program on immigration and award as been a prestigious honor. i always remember sandy asking us what do you think and what

can we do and there's lots of important topics we face every day. thank you. >> i'm the u.s. bureau chief of philippine inquirer and the resident. i'd like to thank the board of supervisors for giving a well deserved honor to sandy kloss. she founded new american media which is the first time a national ethnic media collaborators were brought together to be a part of a larger community and to sandy's tireless search for resources and wide networks. new american media was able to provide unprecedented access for us, ethnic journalists to engage

in fellowships and news makers and the access to opportunities will surely be missed. thank you very much. >> thank you and congratulations, again. >> supervisor breed: that concludes our 2:30 commendations. congratulations to all the honorees. it's now 3:00 and we'll go to our two, 3:00 p.m. special orders. madame orders call items 25 through 28.

>> the clerk: items 25 through 28 comprise the public hearing of persons in the determination of exception from the quality act issued as a categorical exception from the plan department for the transportation agencies proposed hairball project and create a new bicycle lane including installation of a new high visibility of the crosswalk as well as the removal of ten parking spaces and two loading zones along westbound avenue. item 26 is the motion to affirm the determination the intersection improvement project is further exempt from further environmental review and reverse

the determination subsequent to the adoption of findings and the appropriation of findings. >> supervisor: we have before us the appeal of the exception from environmental review hairball improvement project in district 9 and 10. for this hearing we'll be consider the adequacy and the completement of the environmental row view and determination for the hairball improvement project. without objection we'll proceed. ten minutes for the appellate and ten minutes for each speaker en support and ten minutes for the adept and ten minutes for the sponsor or representative and ten minutes for speaker and opposition of the appeal and finally up to three minutes for rebuttal from the appellant. is there objections to proceeding in this way?

if not year opening the hearing and no introductory remarked from representatives of district 9 and 10 and supervisor roben -- >> sorry. i just wanted to acknowledge, colleagues, there was a request for me to recuse myself from this appeal on a purported personal interest in the hairball. i certainly have been public in noting my concern about certain conditions present at the hairball and i have committed to investing resources in finding ways to improve the safety and functionality of the hairball. that said i never previously commented on the issues before the board today. i can and will remain objective in hearing arguments and base my decision on what has been provide to each of us as members of the board and to the information provided and comments made at today's hearing

so i will not be recusing myself in this decision. >> supervisor: thank you, supervisor ronen. we'll ask for the appellant to come forward. have you ten minutes for the presentation? is the appellant not here or maybe in the overflow room? >> she submitted a letter that she would not be coming but based her argument on the written comment. >> so she's not going the presentation? >> that's what was written in a letter distributed to us. >> supervisor breed: so anybody in support you have two minutes. if there's any members of the public here or in the overflow room in support of the appeal you have up to two minutes. seeing none i'll reopen public comment if someone comes in from

the overflow room to speak when they do so. so we will at this time close public comment for support of the appeal. now we'll hear a presentation from the planning department. though you have ten minutes you don't have to use the entire ten minutes. >> good afternoon, president breed and board. i'm with the planning department. joining me today are lisa gibson environmental review officer and a principle planner and we're joined by sfmta staff including the project manager and others. on november 20 planning staff send a memorandum for the categorical exemption and the response was further supplemented on november 27.

the appeal was filed by the appellant on october 19. she submitted an opening brief and rebuttal brief. the decision before the board is whether to uphold the department's decision to issue a categorical exemption and deny the appeal or return the project for additional environmental review. as described, the department's responses, the department found the project would not result in any significant impacts on the environment and is categorically exempt from review. to provide context the hairball refers to the area in san francisco why cesar chavez street and bayshore boulevard and portrero avenue link to highway 101. it would include modification those existing right-of-way

between gerald ave between barnville ave and install high visibility walks and cre move ten parking spaces on westbound gerald ave and overall the project would not involve the construction of any permanent structures and consists mostly of paint and installing soft-hit posts. no existing travel lanes would be removed as part of the project. the appellant contends the project does not fit the definition of the class 1 existing facilities categorical exemption. it's a mischaracterization under a class 1 exemption. here it would result in minor restriping and changes to the existing street to serve various modes of travel and not remove a travel lane. the extent of the construction activities is minimal.

therefore the class 1 exemption was properly applied. the appellant said it includes revisions to the project analyzed under the san francisco bike plan. three bike plan projects are located within the vicinity but they were implemented in 2012 and 2013. the form the existing conditions and project vicinity and were considered in the exemption determination. the current proposal overlaps improvements made on bayshore boulevard in 2012 but it's a new project not identified in the bike plan. the city addressed safety and improve accessibility for all modes of travel is the case here. the appellant also claims due to the large traffic volume with the loading zone removal, the project would have unusual circumstances precluding the use of exemption. the appellant is incorrect.

again, the project would not remove travel lanes and know -- no reduction of pathways would occur. it is not leading to an unusual circumstance. the appellant brought up parking and these are social issues while they're concerning they're not seeking appeal. further the remove of two underutilized commercial loading zones would not be considered an unusual circumstance so a class 1 exemption was determined to be the properly level of review. other issues have been addressed and our responses the appellant claims the current project

compliend combine combined with the other project -- thus we've addressed the other concerns in our responses. for the reason stated in our appeal responses and statements made at the hearing. the determination complies with the requirements of class 1 categorical exemption is the appropriate environmental review determination. the appellant has not provided substantial evidence to refute the conclusion of the department. therefore i urge you to uphold the department's exemption and deny the appeal. this concludes my presentation and planning and staff will welcome any questions you may have. thank you. >> supervisor breed: seeing no names on the roster we'll have up to ten minutes for the mta to do a presentation about the project. if you would like. if not, that's no problem.

>> we can do a short presentation. i'm tallia lang the project manager at the sfmta. just to give you a quick overview of the project this is the hairball area. we're working on different segments. it's being worked on by public works and the subject of the appeal is the portion of gerald avenue between barnville and bayshore and bayshore boulevard between gerald and marrin. this is the project area map. the purpose of the project is to propose changes to make gerald avenue and bayshore safer and easier to using and address issues including a heavy vehicular volume that conflicts

with the large number of cyclists and there's a right move that creates conflicts with pedestrians crossing. one pedestrian fatality occurred in 2013. this is a picture of the area looking south of northbound boulevard and marin street and this looks towards barnville avenue. this is an existing site plan. north is to the right. this is a picture of what we are propose. there's a new bike line on southbound gerald avenue adjacent to marking. the parking is removed for a knew protected bike line. there's upgrades at barnville and gerald avenue and marin street. as planning mentions, no travel lanes are removed.

the lane are narrowed on bayshore from 19 to 13 feet with no effect on vehicle traffic. this is the existing cross section of gerald. this is the proposed project including the curbside bike lane running northbound and adjacent to parking on southbound gerald and there's a six-foot area this is the cross section and this is being implemented. thank you. >> supervisor breed: thank you, and we'll hear from one of those who would like to speak in opposition. are there any members of the public that want to speak in opposition. seeing none the public comment is now closed. the appellant is not here and

the hearing is now closed. supervisors, anyone wants to make any comments or motions? supervisor colin. >> the hairball sits between district 9 and 10 and the project is critical in helping us deliver the pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements that's part of the city and frankly it's been badly needed. so because many paths intersect in this area this interchange is challenging to navigate and there's points of conflict between vehicles and pedestrians and bike -- bicyclists. the project is long overdue. we spent many evenings discussing the future of this particular hairball.

then when you throw in the bike line it's part of a much larger strategy to connect residents from one side of the city to another and heavily traversed. it lends to the city's vision zero strategy and sits into a long-term vision we have that i have support to provide more mobility options for residents into the southeastern side of the city speaking on behalf of district 10 constituents. after the hearing and the presentation from the planning department today i believe the proposed project is consistent with the site exceptions and i have not received evidence or a valid opinion to refute the conclusions of planning department and i'd like to make a motion to uphold the determination and deny the appeal before us today. thank you. >> supervisor breed: so supervisor colin you want to

approve item 26 and table 27 and 28. >> that's correct. >> supervisor breed: is there a second by supervisor ronen. >> colleagues, i just want to start out again by appreciating the appellant for paying tension to the process and for engaging in the decisions and appealing the decision that she didn't believe received enough review. i think this part of the public process is a very important one and one i very much support. and the impact on unusual circumstances or accumulative impacts are untrue. i think these are very minor changes that are consistent with

the categorical exemption and i really want to appreciate the work. it's essential work to protect pedestrian and bike safety in the area which is quite frankly a mess. i want to just acknowledge and talk about the hairball because it drives me crazy this part of my district. it's incredibly poorly designed. it reflects an era when freeway construction created isolating space and confusing routes. it's a mess and dangerous and needs to be completely rethought. so this year i have started working with city agencies to create a new vision for the hairball and as part of the overall plan we'd like to reconnect the three neighborhoods in my district divided by the freeways. in 2018 we'll be flushing out

the plan with constituents and stakeholders to make a long-term plan. what i'd love to see one day is the 101 trenched or capped between the hairball as both mta and the ta and planning commission all know. i know it will be an uphill battle but one we should be focussed on and should achieve. we need to react to the dead zones and open up public outdoor space, we need to create safe routes for walking and biking. it's heavily used by commuters this area of the city. at that point, we will need in depth environmental review because we're looking at a huge project i hope we will accomplish as a city one day. i think that environmental review will help shape and improve the plan. when it comes before us in the future i have my colleagues' support in a new vision for the

very dangerous area of the alemany maze and hairball. that's why i'll support supervisor cohen's motion and want to thank the mta for doing this urgently needed work. >> supervisor breed: thank you, supervisor. because we have members in the overflow room and didn't make it in time for public comment i'll re-open public comment for those members of the public who want to speak in opposition of the appeal. we have members here who want to speak in opposition of the appeal. please come forward. you'll have up to two minutes. >> good afternoon, president breed, supervisors. i'm a commuter organizer on staff at the san francisco bicycle coalition and would like

to ask you firm the categorical exemption on behalf of our 10,000 plus members. it's an important entrance for the bike path under the 101 freeway to connect those biking between the areas and the hairball is the one and only way for people to bike and connect from the mission and other neighborhoods to the southeast of san francisco. currently jorrold offers little protecti protection and creates dangerous conditions and as a result it's a high-injury corridor. adding new lanes will by no means solve the issues associate with the area but a great step in the right direction. in the near term it the make the dangerous stretch safer for those who ride it daily. our members ride the street with their families and loved ones and have been vocal in support

of the project including those who wrote in in opposition to the appeal. san francisco is still mourning the loss of the 17 people hit and killed on our streets this year. if we're to prevent these tragedies from occurring and reach the zero of zero loss on the streets we have to protect corridors like jarrold avenue. thank you. >> supervisor breed: next speaker, please. >> my name is ye and here to up hold the appeal on the bike lane to make those walking and bicycling safer. i choose to bike instead of driving because i think it's cheaper, faster, better for my health and for the environment. however, the biggest difference i notice in shift from driving

to biking is safety. it's not as safe. on market street since the bike lanes are wider and mostly protected i feel relatively safe, however when it comes to other streets such as jarrold it is always challenging. last week when i passed hairball i had to walk my bike because the infrastructure was not good and safe. i hit the fence and posts a couple time just walking. the unsafe experience made me want to go back to driving for safety reasons despite the negative impact of me driving. based on my appearance i'm a believer of the idea if you build it they will come. same is true for automobiles when we build a freeway.

if we want people walking and biking safely in san francisco you have to build safe infrastructures for them. thank you. >> supervisor breed: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm fran taylor. the co-chair of the changes on cesar chavez street and worked on the changes on portrero but there's an old joke you can't get there from here was invented for the hairball. i think whoever came up with this appeal and made it sound like this was some nefarious machination to split pieces off has never worked with the city.

it's slow and piecemeal and the changes started in 2003 so please do this. will will help the city and encourage older and newer riders intimidate this now. thank you. >> supervisor breed: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i ran a program close to this area on jarrold and pack and deliver supplies to nonprofits and schools using my bicycle so i'm very familiar with this stretch of road and can say despite being a very experienced bicyclist i avoided it like the plague. it's very scary. because of the lack of

infrastructure it's one of the reasons i ended the program. >> supervisor breed: thank you. have there any other members of the public who want to speak in opposition of the appeal. seeing none, public comment is now closed. the hearing has been held and is now filed and with that we have a motion and a second to affirm approve item 26 and table item 27 and 28. madame clerk on the motion please call the roll. >> the clerk: [calling roll] >> the clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> supervisor breed: the determination off the exemption is finally affirmed unanimously.

madame clerk please call items 39 through 31. >> the clerk: a special order regarding the tax sale for the presidio common area and the board of supervisors approved a motion to schedule a committee of the whole for today's public hearing. item 29 is where the board will consider the revision of the tax sale of the pres presidio common area and item 30 is to rescind the tax sale based on the determination the property should not have been sold subsequent to the support of the determination and item 31 is to conditionally decide not to rescind the tax sale for the common area. >> supervisor: the committee is being conducted to discuss the presidio common area and to

conditionally rescind or deciding not to rescind the sale. without objection we will proceed as follows up to ten minutes for a presentation by the competitioner or its representati representative and ten minutes in support and ten minutes for the treasurer tax collector, up to ten minutes for the purchaser of the property or successor or interest. up to two minutes for speaker in opposition of the recession and finally up to three minutes for rebuttal by the petitioner and if there's no opposition we'll open the hearing and supervisor farrell before we begin i'll ac none you for opening remarks. >> thank you, president breed and colleagues. presidio is in my district.

when we scheduled the meeting in september it's important we get to the bottom of the facts and need to understand what happened or did happen -- [please stand by] --

excuse me. on this... okay. we will have a presentation up to ten minutes for the petitioner or its

representative. >> thank you, president breed, members of the board. my name is scott emblich, representing the presidio terrace association here today. before i get into the details of how this matter got here, i want to emphasize what today is really about, and what it's about are two words: due process. we're here today because no one regardless of who they are, should be deprived of their property without due process of law, and we don't have to struggle very hard to figure out what due process means in this particular context because the u.s. supreme court has told us. the u.s. supreme court has said that if a tax collector has reason to believe a notice did not receive the property owner,

he must take steps to notify the property owner before auctioning this. many parties have recognized this and have written procedures to take additional steps in order to comply with this bed rock principle of law, but the san francisco tax collector has had no such procedures, and in this case did nothing to notify the presidio terrace association that its sidewalks, green spaces and common areas would be sold, even though the notice was returned to his office clearly marked as undeliverable. the board should therefore rescind this law. so how did we get here? we got here through essentially a 113-year-old anomaly. presidio terrace was setup in 1905.

it was set up in a way that was unusual. it -- it created not just lots, but it created a separate lot for the common area, the streets and the green space. this meant that this separate lot was separately taxable. most people wouldn't think that the street in front of their houses was separately taxable, but that's the way it was setup. what was also setup was c.c. and r's setup against the property, zp that's important for two years. the c.c. and r.'s state this green area exists solely for the benefit of the homeowners. it's their green space, and also it says easements exist to protect those homeowners. every homeowners in the c.c. and r.'s has an easement leading to the common space. so this led to a mistake 40 years ago. the taxes apparently had not been paid, and the presidio terrace association at that time hired an accountant to

clear things up. he did. he got things back on track. his name was samuel mendelssohn and did the taxed from 1985 to 1996. the second accountant somehow didn't get the message that hey, you might not believe this, but you've got to pay property taxes of about 13 bucks a year on that street. he didn't know that. neither did subsequent accountants, neither did subsequent property managers hired by the association, and most importantly, neither did any of the members of the presidio terrace association. that got us here only because it was compounded by mistakes by the tax collector. the tax collector sent bills to the -- to an old invalid address for 20 years. what happens when you send bills to 47 kearny street addressed to the presidio

terrace association? well, we know. three days later, it comes back mark marked as undeliverable. then, the tax collector sent it to the old address. but we know it happened that time. that notice came back to the tax collector's office and when that happens, the tax collector must, under law, under constitutional law, under public policy and under common sense take additional steps to notify the property owner before selling the property, but the tax collector did nothing. now, the law, as i said is the easy part here. it's not complicated. the supreme court has ruled and california courts have ruled just as well that if the tax collector has reason to believe that the notice didn't reach the property owners, he's got to do something more.

this is true even if the property owner failed to keep his mailing address up to date with the tax collector. here's what the supreme court said in jones versus flowers: quote, we hold when mailed a notice of a tax sale is returned unclaimed the state must take additional reasonable steps to notify the property owner before selling his property if it's practicable to do so. california courts have said the same thing. importantly, other california keeb kee counties have gotten this message. they've gotten it right, and the way it works in other california counties is they first reach out to the property owner and they reach out to parties of interest. that's an important term here, because parties of interest are independently required to be notified. who are the parties of interest here? well, it's the people around the common area for whose benefit the common area exists

and who have easements over the common area, but there was no attempt whatsoever to notify any of those homeowners. then, if mail is returned as undeliverable, in other counties, the procedures are unanimous. in sacramento county, it says that if you send mail and it's returned as undeliverable, you must research for a better address. in san luis obispo county, if the notice of sale is returned, you must research an accurate and better database for an address. in contra costa county, you must do better research to find a better address, and if the tax collector had done that, had done some basic research, he would have found plenty of better addresses for the presidio terrace association. ecohave looked in his own files or the assessor's files and found better addresses in documents recorded against the property.

ecohave looked in the state -- secretary of state's database for associations like the presidio terrace association and found better addresses. ecohave used the normal property search databases that other offices used, that my law office uses and found better addresses for the presidio terrace association, but he did none of that. nor did he post the property. now, this is san francisco, for goodness sakes. we post for everything in this city. you want to cut down a tree, you want to remodel your bathroom, you have to post your property, and the supreme court has said that that is a specific and reasonable step that the tax collector should consider taking and the california court of peal said that's a step that the tax collector should consider taking before auctioning off the property. now, mistakes have happened, and it happens in other counties, but mistakes that happened in other counties are mysteriously different from what happens here.

in the last ten years, the los angeles county board of supervisors has had to dale with this issue about rescission. 15 of those 16 times, the tax collector has come in with the property owner said there's been a mistake, we should have this rescinded. this is a good summary of what happened in los angeles county. the tax collector agrees that it did not make a reasonable effort to obtain the last known mailing address of all stastat the property owner, when notices sent to it came back as unkplifshl, as it did here. consequently, the tax collector agrees that the order should be rescinded. same thing in alameda county, same thing in contra costa county. why isn't that happening here? there's been a suggestion that well, that could be expensive, if you've got to notify -- try other means to notify or to

post the property. first of all, we know it's not expensive. it's five bucks to send a piece of mail to another address, but most importantly, the tax code takes care of it. those expenses are rofsecovera. they're recoverable from the delinquent tax owner when they redeem their amount to keep the property or recoverable from the sale of the property, so it is by no means burdensome, expensive or unreasonable. the point here is that this could happen anywhere, not just presidio terrace. it could happen to any -- anyone in san francisco who lives along a private street that happened to be separately taxable or near what's called a sliver parcel which happens frequently in san francisco, but everyone should be required to have the tax collector follow the law. we agree with miss lamb's counsel, this is not about favoritism for the privilege, this is about everybody.

everybody has the same rights and they should be entitled to have the tax collector make a reasonable effort before selling our property. the law is consistent with public policy, it's common sense. we ask that you rescind this unlawful sale and hopefully enact legislation to keep this from happening again. thank you. >>president breed: thank you. are there any members of the public who had he he like to speak in favor of rescinding the tax sale, this will be your opportunity. please lineup to your right. you will have up to two minutes. if there are any members of the public who are in the overflow room, please come to the chamber doors and you will be allowed to enter so that you have an opportunity to speak. first speaker, sir, please come forward, and please lineup to your right, my left. >> good afternoon, chairman breed, and good afternoon board of supervisors. my name is christopher rankin. for background, my wife and i

live directly across the street from presidio terrace. we look right out over the common area that we're discussing today. it's a lovely view and a large part of why we live there today. apparently one issue is whether the city and county met the standard for -- legal standard for a reasonable effort. i don't want to belabor the point that the prior gentleman made, but i -- but by profession, i'm a stockbroker and financial planner. it's a highly regulated business, and i want to share that we have -- i won't show them, but these are very similar to the details of the procedures that were shown earlier. the public has that, as has demonstrated by the other counties. every firm in my business -- i worked for wells fargo brokerage house for most of my career. we have extremely specific rules of what to do when when there's undeliverable mail. there's no question that that's what any reason person would do

in any business, in public, in private, on a personal level, and i just can't imagine that that would not be the very least that the city-county could have done, the tax collector. another thing, i live in san francisco now. i was a planning commissioner for the county of san mateo for about seven years, up until 2014, and i see a planning issue here. i don't know what the city and county were thinking 100 years ago, but i do know at this point we rely on our government to protect us from strange and n anomalous things like that. if the tax order is not rescinded, it'll not a potentially bad effect on the welfare, and if i were a planning commissioner, i would be incensed that this issue did not come before you, so thank you for your time. appreciate it. >>president breed: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is sunny lee. my husband, daughter, father, and i live at 31 presidio terrace. three generations live together in our home. when my mother was diagnosed with cancer, we bought our house so that all of us could live together and try everything we could to try to cure my mom. unfortunately, she passed away a few years ago. my father was a dentist in san francisco over 40 years. my husband has lived here in san francisco for nearly all his life. he was three years old when he emigrated here. san francisco is our home. my houusband and i have worked hard all our lives and -- for everything we have. we understand there was a terrible mistake, oversight, by

our h.o.a. accountant decades ago, but we are in utter disbelief that an actual street, not some vacant land that people consciously disregarded, can be taken out from under us, even after the city knew that they had not reached us. i'm left wondering how this situation is anywhere close to fair. i plead that the board of supervisors please reverse this sale and give our street back to us. thank you. >>president breed: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, president breed and members of the board. thank you for taking the time today to hear us. my name is pamela joiner. my husband and i have lived at 18 presidio terrace for some years now. we feel so fortunate to live in our great city another this

time in history. we are aware that as a group we bear some responsibility for being here today; however, the failure to change an address occurred more than a decade before we moved into the neighborhood. we've always paid our taxes in a timely fashion and have sought to contribute back to our community in various ways. for example, we have a particular interest in encouraging more inclusiveness in the arts and have opened our house to a broad cross section of the community to that end. presidio terrace and our community have been a helpful pratt fo platform. we had no knowledge of this tax obligation and we would have no reason to believe that we nor our neighbors would seek to avoid paying the tax obligation that brings us here today. it was clear from the return of mail that our community was not receiving the notices and was not aware of our obligation. due process is required for the taking of property, and yet, with this knowledge, there was

no reasonable effort to notify us to resolve this situation, which would have undoubtedly happened quickly. the question is would you want to be known san francisco is a city that takes care of its citizens or one that punishes them for their technical violations. i am very confident of which one you would like to stand for. thank you. >>president breed: thank you so much. next speaker, please. >> my name is andrew whitaker. i'm the british consul general based here in san francisco. >> can you pull the microphone close, please? i'll restart your time. >> okay. my name is andrew whitaker. i'm the brittic consul general here in san francisco. it's truly an honor for me to

have the opportunity to speak today, and i have the greatest respect for your work. today, over 400,000 british tourists visit california each year, and hundreds of thousands of jobs are the as a result of billions of dollars of trade and investment here between us. it is my great pleasure to work with the people here in san francisco to continue to develop and strengthen that relationship. i am here to offer my strong support of the presidio terrace case brought before you. who owns the streets and how it is managed has a direct bearing on this. the british government therefore considers itself to be a party of interest in the sale of presidio terrace, however, despite 15 years of ownership up to 2015, we were not informed of the process nor

involved of the final sale, if we would have been, we would have worked with the parties to quickly resolve the matter. if the sale were allowed to stand, we have significant concerns about the potential impact on the secure and well functioning residence i need as i go about my duties as the consul general. while i understand the process was followed that allowed the sale to go ahead, that same process allows you to rescind the sale. i hope you agree that we are right to consider ourselves a party of interest, and that our wishes were not taken into consideration. thank you. >>president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is pam cheng, and my

two sisters and i grew up at 15 presidio terrace. unfortunately, my parents, sam and barbara cheng could not be here today. my dad, sam is a retired pharmacist, and together my parents ran the rexall pharmacy in the inner sunset. my husband and i live with my parents, and we recently welcomed our first child, brandon, who is now 20 months old. although my family has lived in presidio terrace for four decades, we never heard that the street was a separate parcel. my parents believed that the street was part of our lots, and all of this time we have paid or h.o.a. dues and property taxes. we never received notice of the sale and were shocked to learn that city has transferred ownership of the common area without notifying us. it amazes me that for the last two years we've been paying dues to maintain and landscape

the common areas that don't even belong to us. the supposed owners have allowed us to pay for all of this work without ever speaking up to say that the property had transferred to them. this is an injustice that has allowed a third party to take part of our home and our property. under section 3701 of the california tax code, the tax collector is required to make a reasonable effort to identify the addresses of all parties of interest. i'm a party of interest, as are each of our neighbors and none of us were contacted. we now learned that the city failed to identify the addresses and geographic location of an entire city block. this is a duty owed to us as residents of this city. i respectfully ask you to reverse the transfer of our streets and common areas that was sold by the city without or knowledge. thank you. >>president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please.

good eveni >> good evening, supervisors. my name is david goldman and i'm the pastor of congregation emanuel, frequent host to events across the city. presidio terrace and emanuel have been good neighbors for as long as anyone in our institution can remember. we have provided parking four our clergy, senior staff and community partners during the high holidays and other special events, enabling them to participating while greatly minimizing the impact on our neighbors. any additions, presidio terrace has been helpful with our ongoing security procedures, much like my colleague of the british general consulate. our general teams frequently communicate on keeping the areas safe, issues which you can imagine are complex and dynamic. emanuel has always and will continue to ensure that our

building is a safe place for people to worship, meet, and build community, and we're glad to have presidio terrace as responsive and accommodating partners in our security requirements. the terrace has also allowed access to common areas of the sidewalk that run along our property. this access is supported and unabled or preschool to play outside for group walks in a safe environment. the walk also serves as a second form of egress. should a third party own the property, we're very concerned that they will be -- will not be interested or engaged in preserving our neighborly relationships or be active partners with our own security and operational matters. as a person ultimately responsible for the safety of our community and minimizing the impact on our area, i ask you to consider the significant impact and potential harm on the community if the sale is not rescinded. thank you so much.

>>president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is mark kushner, and i'm speaking for myself as well as my mother who is standing next to me here. she grew up at 35 presidio terrace and has lived on the street for almost 80 years, since 1939. i personally am so local that i was actually born up stairs in that house as there wasn't time to get to the hospital. i want to make two quit points: first, despite the comments in the press about the people living there, i want to make it clear that regular people who've been living there for decades live there, as well. my mother is divorced, and she's on a fixed income. i now live there, as well, with her kids -- with my kids, her grand kids, as i was recently

separated from my wife, and i have many happy memories there from plague whiffle ball in the street to handing out candy to hundreds of people, the kids that came from all over the city, a community tradition that still continues and exists 50 years later. my second point, please consider the issue of fairness. our family isn't paying taxes to san francisco for eight decades, and our family was never personally notified by the tax assessor during all those decades that the homeowners association owed taxes for a separate parcel. my mother assumed that the tax notice she received every year and paid included all the taxes that she owed. it isn't fair that the street that my mother played on as a child, that i played on as a child, that my kid play on is taken away, so please consider rescinding this sale in the

interest of fairness. the city should make sure that law abiding and tax paying citizens like us get at least a minimum notice just like all the other counties -- los angeles, alameda, and other ones. >>president breed: thank you. thank you for your comment. great. thank you for your comments, and next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, president breed and members of the board. >>president breed: please speak directly into the microphone. >> my name is jacqueline young, and my family has lived at number 5 presidio terrace for the last 45 years, since 1972. i was personally named in mr. kopp's brief as someone who ignored her tax obligations. well, i want to assure you that while i faithfully paid my personal property taxes for the past 45 years, i did not know that our street was a separate parcel subject to property tax. my late husband robert and i

have worked tirelessly as members of the association's board in the 90's, and we were instrumental in restating the cc. and r.'s during the middle of that decade. we've invested in the common area. he was a real estate professional and also didn't know about the separate tax obligation for the common area. members of the board, we neighbors love our unique street and are deeply engaged in it. city residents and tourists also enjoy the history and uniqueness of presidio terrace. it is a city treasure, and yet, the treasurer's office ignored our right to due process. his office failed to alert any of us by mail or phone or -- of the up coming sale and didn't tack a written notice on one or more of the many posts and trees that are in the circle. this would have been easy to

accomplish. on behalf of the presidio terrace owners and all of the others who have found themselves in similarly untenable situations, i ask you to overturn the tax sale. thank you for your time. >>president breed: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is carol shearer, and my husband and i are moving from boston to san francisco in order to enjoy the vibrant y urban city, and to be closer to our grandchildren. to that end in 2016, we bought 27 presidio terrace. the house was in serious disrespect and requires a complete interior renovation and exterior restoration. we hired a team of permitting consultants and a general contractor to help us complete

the project, fully complying with all of the city's requirements. we are removing a number of old additions, reducing the size of the house on the lot while preserving the historical qualities of the house. it is a two year project. you can imagine we were shocked to discover through the news in boston that our community has this condition that threatens the safety and quiet environment that we are investing substantial time and resources into. there was no notice in any of our purchase disclosures in this situation. our realtior told us that the street and common areas were managed by the h.o.a., which she believed was true, but surely, there was some obligation on the part of the city, the seller, or someone to disclose this risk to us. more recently, we learned that the narrow path between our back yard and the synagogue was located in the common area. this gives them to object to our back yard design decisions. we learned this